You probably learned somewhere that correlation does not equal causality. That is to say, just because two variables rise and fall together doesn’t mean that one causes the other. One of the examples is that ice cream cone sales rise and fall with rape rates. It isn’t that ice cream cones cause rape; it is that high temperatures increase demand for ice cream and cause many people to leave windows open to get a cool breeze to enter; instead, a rapist takes advantage of the unlocked window.

In that case, there is a common factor driving both variables: high temperatures. Sometimes the correlation is just a coincidence. Statisticians have ways to figure out whether correlations are coincidental or not — but even then, the best that you can say for any particular correlation is that it is unlikely that the correlation is coincidence.

The bigger problem is when you have a correlation that is not a coincidence, but the question becomes, “Which is the cause? Which is the result?” There’s a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but longitudinal studies have pretty well established that smoking comes before the lung cancer. That’s a pretty strong clue that smoking causes lung cancer — not that people who get lung cancer take up smoking because they are so upset about being sick.

Similarly, if you surveyed American homes, you would find a strong correlation between the presence of legally prescribed syringes and at least one diabetic in the home. If you didn’t know that diabetics use syringes to inject insulin, you might wonder: Do syringes cause diabetes? Or does diabetes cause syringes to appear? This problem is known as determining the direction of causality.

Unlike “chicken or the egg,” longitudinal studies give you a realistic chance of figuring out, when you have two correlated variables, which is the cause and which is the symptom. All this discussion is to introduce one of those reminders that correlation is not enough. There’s a new study coming out, just in time to try and influence the Supreme Court in the upcoming challenge to Chicago’s handgun freeze law.

The anti-gun left are nutters. They sympathize more with the monstrous low lifes than the innocent victims. That’s why they do everything they can to get criminals out of prison, to save murderers from being executed and to make decent normal people as defenseless as possible. Because God forbid if one of these low lifes was shot as they broke into your home and tried to rob, rape or murder you. How anyone can vote for these lunatics I have no idea. It must be because the left controls our popular culture and has brainwashed tons of Americans into believing their crazy ideas make sense and the Republicans are evil Nazis. Just look at how the leftist media protrays stories of home ownders defending themselves by shooting low lifes who break into their homes. They protray the home owners as stupid blood thirsty rednecks and the criminals as poor misunderstood people who were just lashing out at the world which doesn’t care about them. Awww, somone grab a violin. The leftists have also made sure that if you defend yourself then you’re going to jail for several years as punishment for “murdering” the group of thugs who kicked your door down in the middle of night. It’s disgusting.

It is not that people with cancer smoke because they are upset about being sick. It is the undetectable early stages of lung cancer that cause the victim’s lungs to itch that causes the urge to soothe the lungs with cigarette smoke.

OK, where do I apply for a grant from the Joyce Foundation? I can rationalize any set of data they have to give any results they want.

I agree. I have long suspected that leftist empathy for criminals and disdain of their victims was a logical result of their philosophy.

Leftists hate our society, and our civilization. They make no secret of that fact; when was the last time you heard one say anything nice about the rest of us? As such, they dream of tearing our “unjust” society down, and building their own “just” one on the ruins thereof.

In their minds, any attack on our “unjust” society is a good thing; any defense of it is a bad thing. So, when a criminal attacks a law-abiding citizen, they aren’t really “doing wrong”- they are Striking Out Against Injustice.

Leftist often secretly admire criminals. (Or sometimes not so secretly- consider the case of Mumia Abu-Jemal.) To them, the criminal is attacking the Evil Society (ours) in a way they don’t have the personal courage to. (The saying “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is applicable here.) As such, the criminal must be supported, as he is the “front-line fighter” in their “war of liberation”.

As for the victim, if they acquiesce, they are fulfilling their “proper role’”- accepting what happens to them as “just” punishment for their support of an “unjust” system. If, however, they resist, in any way, they are refusing to behave “properly”- and therefore are deserving of punishment (from the “authorities”, i.e. the leftists in positions of political power) for their “lack of enlightenment”.

Consider that in the UK now, under Labour, if a homeowner takes a swing with his fist at an armed housebreaker attacking him, the homeowner faces prison time- the housebreaker a fine, if indeed he gets any penalty at all. (Most are in fact released with a warning not to do it again- even after the fifth or sixth such offense.) The American brand of “progressive” sees this as a good thing, and would like to apply similar legal sophistries here.

Seen in this light, an intended victim using the most effective means of resistance- a firearm- marks them as not merely wrong, but evil.

The mindset is entirely consistent, once you understand its motivations. It is also, in my opinion, one more good reason not to let leftists tell anyone else what to do- or what not to do.

A few more statistics regarding Illinois gun laws (Chicago laws are even tighter): Illinois is one of only two states (Wisconsin is the other) where no civilian can get a concealed weapon carry permit. (See ). Illinois is the 13th most violent state at 542 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The 5 states with the lowest violent crime rates (nos. 46-50) are all “may issue” or “shall issue” concealed weapons permit states. With the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the District of Columbia is off the chart (not ranked because its not a state) at 1,508 violent crimes per 100,000 population. (See ). Crime stats are a reflection of the overall condition of an area. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not bring the crime rate down.

Lefties will grasp at any straw in the vain attempt to prove there crazy ideas on the world…
Prime example…
Sean Penn supports Iran, he also supports gay rights…. Iran loves to hang gays every chance they get by their necks… doesn’t get any more crazy than that.

#6 Bob – Actually, arming the citizenry reduces certain crime rates by about 8%. This has been shown to be more or less true in every case.

The opposition to gunownership by the citizens is that, simply, those gun-owners get a bit uppity towards those in power. As long as such uppity (aka, bitter clingers) peons exist, those in power are never really safely in power.

Every thing in our considerable power must be done to discourage any tendency towards resistance. The Sheeple must not be allowed to learn to stand on their hind legs!

White Americans are the most fearful people in the world. Needing guns to protect themselves from Blacks and Hispanics while pretending that its all about their devotion to the Second Ammendment. All sponsored by the gun makers of course.

Silly poll. It’s only usefullness is to provide legislators with more justifications for limitting gun ownership. If an individual is so timid that he\she would choose not to defend him/herself based upon its conclusions, then clearly that individual should not own a weapon. Owning a weapon carries with it a responsibility to learn how to use it properly, and store it safely. It also requires a psychological commitment. While pointing a weapon at an attacker often successfully aborts the attack, unless one is prepared to actually use it, it would be a mistake to brandish it.

It is odd indeed that people still make this crazy claim that gun0ownership increases the probability of victimhood. I have been collecting firearms since I was twelve (over 35 years now), I now own over 100 guns (long-gun and pistol). By the logic of this study I should have been shot several times by now.

The FBI keeps stats on the relationship between homicide victims and their killers as well as tracking the circumstances (if known) that lead to the murder. They post this data every year on their website. Oddly none of the national media are capable of finding it, or perhaps are committed to not reporting it. What is particulary enlightening is the data that shows that if one is a 15-27 year old, male, minority, gangmember you are both the most likely victim of, as well as suspect in, a homicide. They are probably afraid of being called racist as the information does not fit with the approved agenda.

@9. Lorenzo: Please try to support your absurd allegation with something that looks like data rather than racist screed.

Black and HIspanics kill more Blacks and Hispanics than anybody else. The precentage of Blacks or Hispanics killed by Caucasians is tiny, those dreaded “bitter clingers” aren’t skipping their PTA meetings to go downtown and gun up ethnic neigborhoods. If I were a law-abiding member of either minority group I woud arm myself to protect my family and home from the people most likely to come looking to cause me trouble, i.e. memebers of my own ethnic group!

Check the carefully compiled data that the FBI presents before you go making groundless assumptions.

Have you not seen what’s happening in Africa and Central/South America? Seems like they do a good job of killing each other with guns. So, I’m sure there is a correlation between high murder rates in Africa and Mexico to justify the “whites” need to have guns to protect themselves from those who call themselves African-American or Hispanic-American.

#9, Lorenzo—The fact of the matter is that police almost always arrive (and sometimes they never arrive) after the crime has been committed, and when they arrive, they collect evidence and take witness statements—they are reactive; the clean up crew, who may or may not ever catch the criminal. FBI statistics show “clearance rates” for solving crimes and arresting criminals who commit them average under 50% nationally; only 17.4% for property crimes—Burglary is only 12%, and 45.1 % for violent crimes—Murder clearances are only 63.6%, Rape clearances only 40.4% (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.html).

Thus, if someone attacks you on the street, tries to stick up the convenience store you just happen to be in, or tries to break into your home–unless you are very lucky and a cop just happens by and sees and stops the crime in progress–you are on your own.

Naturally people who realize just what is going on will try to protect themselves, their homes and their families, and that means strengthening their “situational awareness” and all of their security arrangements– at work, at home and while traveling. This also means that people increasingly have decided to “carry” a concealed weapon for their and their loved ones defense.

Your argument replicates the flawed argument highlighted by the article; in “carrying” you are trying to defend yourself against criminals, white, black, brown or blue. Since Blacks and Hispanics commit a far greater percentage of crimes than their percentage of the population, that means that–odds are–you will likely be defending yourself against criminals who are Black or Hispanic. If Asians committed the majority of crimes, you would be–more often than not—defending yourself against Asian criminals, or if Hawaiians committed the majority of crimes, your would likely be defending yourself against Hawaiians.

P.S.—As for “Profiling;” if X commits the majority of crimes, it is only common sense to be on a particularly sharp lookout for X, and to direct the majority of your limited detecting, preventing, and crime fighting capabilities towards X, rather than waste some of those efforts by spreading them out to also direct them against Y and Z—who do not disproportionately commit the majority of crimes– in a misguided effort to be “politically correct,”“non-discriminatory” and/or “fair.”

Fearful whites? Perhaps, but with ample cause. Just take a look at who’s out roaming about our urban areas. Prudent would be a more apt adjective. And as for being particularly fearful of ‘Blacks and Hispanics’, well I refer you to the current census of felons incarcerated for violent crimes. Just check out the demographics. It may not be politically correct, it may hurt your pride, but you can’t argue with the facts.

A woman takes a gun to her kid’s soccer game. She becomes famous among right wing extremists. She gets shot to death. This article appears. No, you’re not being played. Gun companies have no interest in selling guns. They care about principles not profits. They’re not capitalists. Don’t worry about it. It’s fine. Go ahead.

Lorenzo, the 2ndamendent has no racial component.
When you claim that Whites as a group fear Blacks and Hispanics, you are projecting.
This will all be worked out next fall.
Meanwhile, the 2nd amendment has been upheld by the USSC. No opinion poll will change that. The USSC, by law, does NOT take opinion polls into consideration.
I won’t say the opinion poll was a waste of time and money, since it did keep the pollsters out of the bars and away from playgrounds while it was being done.

I dunno Lorenzo. I used to think that love would heal the world. I’ve always tried to understand the anger of others and accomodate them. I always attempted to turn the other cheek when provoked. At least that was the case before I was mugged by two grinning imbeciles, i.e. ‘youths’, who broke my nose and attempted to rape me. Fortunately, a good samaritan happened by, and he was armed. My manly attempted rapists had a profound change of heart. I still am a loving individual. I still try to understand what makes some people so angry. But now I carry a .40 cal. Glock semiautomatic pistol. And I was damn sure I learned how to use it.. So, attention all of you predatory youths…you have been warned. No offense, Lorenzo.

Ah, Sean Penn. One of my favorites. I remember that classic photo of Sean when he raced down to assist the needy after hurricaine Katrina in New Orleans. There Sean was, floating along in a dinghy, on the streeets of the Big Easy, wielding a shotgun. I guess bird season had opened early.

Maybe because we’re the #1 target of hispanics, arabs and blacks? Over 40,000 white women are raped by black males in America alone every single year. In comparison less than 10 black women are raped by white men every year. The murder and robbery statistics are equally one sided in America. And crime statistics are just as one sided between whites, hispanics, blacks and arabs all throughout the world. Arab muslim immigrants to Australia routinely go on gang raping sprees of white Australian women and the same thing happens in countries like Sweden as well. Or look at what’s happening throughout Africa where whites are being systematically raped, robbed and murdered. Also many gangs (primarily hispanic and black) require members to rape, rob or murder a white person in order to join. Blacks and hispanics are literally trying to ethnically cleanse whites from many areas throughout the country. It just never gets reported because they’re afraid whites will rise up and in return persecute blacks, hispanics and arabs. Hispanic illegal aliens are also trying to ethnnically clease blacks from several areas of the country as well. Especially in California. Yet white leftists don’t say a word about this blatant widespread bigotry within minority groups because in their mind brown skinned people can’t be bigots. Only staight white conservative Christian males can be bigots in their view. The leftists don’t want white people defending themselves but we will adapt and overcome just like we always have.

Several years ago a billboard I saw on my commute used the statistic that 1 in 4 children were insufficiently immunized to proclaim that there’s a 25% chance that YOUR child isn’t properly immunized. Um, no. That’s not what the 1 in 4 stat implies. But nobody expects to find statisticians in the marketing department at a county health dept.

A co-worker once tried to imply, using a similar study, the my gun was more likely to harm a family member than an intruder. Maybe. Maybe not. But I asked if the study excluded people with histories of domestic violence? Did it exclude convicted felons? Did it exclude instances where the gun was in the hands of a minor or someone otherwise untrained? Did it exclude instances where any alcohol or drugs were involved? Because unless it excluded all those conditions then the results of the study were not relevant to me when determining the risk my firearm posed to my family. My co-worker, of course, had only read the headline and therefore had absolutely no idea what he was talking about beyond the contents of the headline.

Again no data to support your opinion; have you ever read Dr. John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”? Try it, I know all that data and reading stuff is hard but give it a try and then explain away the data presented, if you can.

Lorenzo, your comment takes the same line of reasoning discussed in the article. We don’t support gun rights in order to protect the 2nd Amendment. The 2ndA exists in order to protect our right to protect ourselves. And there’s a very good reason to guard that right.

Muggers, rapists, home invaders, gang-bangers, armed robbers, and those of limited intellect who enjoy torturing the weak do not inhabit death row. My uncle served 25 years in the Marines, and he damn sure taught me how to handle a weapon (customized Colt .45 Auto,). You choose to defend yourself or not. I really don’t give a rat’s ass.

I believe that right to keep and bear (most kinds) of arms should be allowed and protected. The right wing is correct, guns do not kill people, people do. However, I also take the police side in the argument(s) that some guns and ammo do not belong on the streets (we all know what they look like) and that screening buyers on a national level needs to be strengthened. We must do all we can to reduce the embarrassing numbers of innocent people getting shot and killed everyday on our streets and the gun companies should be helping, not hindering this effort.

I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood of Cambridge, MA in the 1950s. I never worried about being mugged or anything because I was too poor, and could handle myself okay in a fair fight. Through hard work and the gift of genetic intelligence, I was the first in my family to graduate from college. I went on to a military career and then a software career.

I am now solidly middle class, with some property and eroding investments that are worth protecting. Among the things I received from the military were an Expert Marksmanship award and a Disability Rating.

That means that I can not handle myself okay in a fair fight anymore, hell, who fights fair anymore, right? Plus, I’ll be celebrating my 64th birthday in a few days. I probably look like a lucrative target to the average mugger.

At least once per month I take my several Glocks (full-sized and my little 9 mm concealed carry gun) to the local range and fire for practice/fun. It’s exhilarating to peep through my reading glasses at the front sight, with the target way downrange in the background, and concentrate the minor tremors out of my old hands, and punch holes in the “10″ ring.

When I get done at the range, I take the guns home and carefully clean and lubricate them and reload the magazines so they’re ready for the next use. They’re precision tools, just like other craftsman’s tools. I hope I never have to use them for their intended purpose, but I will without hesitation.

One last thing I should mention, in case I sound like a “Dirty Harry” “take no prisoners” executioner. My concealed carry pistol, which also sit bedside at night in case of a break-in, is equipped with a laser aiming device. I think of it as a “second chance” light for the bad-guy. When he sees the red dot on his heart or his forehead he has the chance to reflect on whether he wants to continue with his present course of action or choose an alternate with more favorable outcomes.

All the rest of the usual suspects, you can go ahead and be subjects and I will go ahead and be a citizen.

Be well aware that the framers of the Constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment for protection of the citizens against attempts by the government to usurp the public’s liberty and secondarily for personal protection.

I have known hundreds of people who own guns and know none who have shot themselves or loved ones. I do know several who held would be assailants at gun point for the police to pick up.

I am associated with a law enforcement department and 90% of our homicides and ag assaults are gang and/or drug related. Guess which gun owners are getting shot. Yes! The criminals who have guns illegally because they have been convicted before and continue to do illegal activities.

Ah yes, the evil gun companies, the damned capitalists! Like the production of weapons in war when the companies are the Arsenal of Democracy and after the war are the Merchants of Death. Or closer in time we have our doctors who take care of our health until the health care bills are in trouble and now the doctors are incompetent and greedy and only the government can control them, those monsters!

“A bat is designed for baseball. A kitchen knife is designed for cooking. A handgun is designed for killing people.”

A handgun is designed to have the *potential* to kill people. Understand the difference? Does the word “deterrence” mean anything to your public-school-educated mind? Every year over 250,000 crimes are thwarted by armed citizens *without anyone getting shot.*

Or take this anecdote: An ex-girlfriend of mine was carved up by a psycho with a Ginsu (“designed for cooking”) on her front steps one night. She survived. The next girl, three blocks away and fifteen minutes later, wasn’t so lucky: dead at the scene from multiple stab wounds.

Part of the tragedy is that Sophia’s upstairs neighbor, an ex-Marine, heard her screams and came rushing out with his .45- but went down the back stairs rather than the front. Otherwise, that dead girl would be alive today.

As soon as Sophia got out of the hospital seven weeks later she got a .40 S&W, a range membership, and a CCP. She also changed her mind about the death penalty.

You naive simpletons would give the criminal minority a monopoly of force with which to prey upon the law-abiding majority. More to the point, you would deny the citizen the inherent, inalienable *right* to defend his or her person.

Now and Then please actually contribute to the discussion and stop spouting talking points.

Due to human nature a percentage of the stronger prey on the weak. Guns make them equal. Criminals hate a fair fight.

Unfortunatly or the 10% or so of murders that aren’t drug or gang related most of the rest is domestic violence. Having a gun or not having a gun isn’t going to change that. Kitchen knives, bottles, cars or hands around the throat will continue to kill with or without guns. Without guns the women will do all the dieing. That is sad fact about humans.

Please let me clarify my position. The question is not whether or not a weapon is an appropriate self-defense option. The proper question is what is the most appropriate caliber? Thank you for your attention.

Those on death row are those convicted of heinous crimes, and particularly nasty murderers. And not many at that. But you won’t find rpists, muggers, gang bangers, armed robbers or home invaders. Am I speaking too fast for you?When a 20 y/o thug mugs a 75 y/o granny and she ends up with a fractured hip, concussion, or slash wound, he’ll likely will never be caught, and if caught will receive a minimal sentence and will rapidly be returned to the steets. Those are the reality. try to deal with it.

“What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low.”

LOL.

If that’s really true, then the people in the government will naturally disarm themselves immediately.

The Constitution doesn’t provide for private citizens to bear arms so that they can hunt or defend themselves against intruders in their homes, although those are definitely nice side benefits. The Constitution is talking about the citizen’s right to bear arms and be prepared to protect his liberty against foreign or domestic tyranny. This scares the crap out of collectivists, who always favor government control of every social variable in our society. So, we continually get these useless gun control “studies” from the tribal collective. As is the way of communists, gun control is a primary objective of this administration. We may soon find that we finally have to use our firearms for the very reason that the Constitution describes. If that becomes necessary, God help us all.

Do you really think that they would any less traumatized if daddy had beat mommy to death with a bat? or cut her up with a knife? The gun isn’t the problem, the murderous a$$hat is! The first recorded murder in history (the case of Cain vs Able) took place long before firearms were invented. It is a sorry fact of human nature that some of us are sufficiently socially defromed as to be threat to the rest.

Your statement does nothing to to support the contention raised by the study. The simple presence of firearms does not significantly increase the probability of being killed by one. The participation in criminal activity while illegally armed with a gun does indeed increase that risk. Living with an abusive husband with guns in the house is certainly a bad idea, love is blind and sometimes stupid.

The study looks at a particulary violent inner city area with a notably violent demographic as it’s target. If you look at the sea you will likely find water, if you look at an innner city with a serious gang problem you wil find crime. I wonder what a similarly conducted study would find in Wyoming?

Lorenzo, are you smoking crack? I don’t have a gun because of racism, you twit. I have a gun because I live in bear and wolf country. But if some asshat thinks I’m easy prey because I’m a woman, I’ll gladly plant his ass where he stands – regardless of his race.

And spot on to all other posters who point out that gun ownership REDUCES crime.

An intruder OR the gummint, doesn’t matter which, will have to pull my Glock 9mm out of my bitter, clinging, cold, dead hands.

Now and Then, while you’re explaining things to the daughter of the murdered woman, perhaps you’ll explain to the parents of the murdered Virginia Tech students why no one was allowed to carry guns on campus. Had they been, someone might have been able to take Seung-hui Cho out, and lives could have been saved.

My favorite bumper sticker, similar in tone to the one mentioned in the article but more…pointed than it: “Guns kill people the same way spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.”

As for the arguments by Now and Then and others, here: they are devoted to the idea that only the government should defend you. Has anyone ever told you, Now and Then, about how the Los Angeles Police Department RAN AWAY from a mob during the Rodney King riots, and left the citizens to defend themselves against a mob of gang members and thugs, bent on raping and beating them? I don’t own a gun (here in California the authorities have made it a real hassle to legally own firearms) but I have to admit that during that week it was a real regret I didn’t have one. Fortunately I was living, at the time, in the suburbs, where the violence was minimal. Those who lived in neighborhoods where there was actual rioting were completely on their own. Business owners were told to leave their merchandise and buildings to the mob and hope their insurance policies would cover the losses. After all, if you own a small business, you’re rich, and can afford the loss, right?

Everyone should be exclusively relying on the government for their protection, and for everything else too. That way, if you do something the government doesn’t like, you can be out in the cold in no time.

Anton @12 – The actual stats are as follows: 91% of black homicides are committed by other blacks; 85% of white homicides are committed by other whites. In terms of numbers, that means very few blacks are killed by non-blacks and a whole lot of whites are killed by non-whites.

Now and then @36 – Guns are not for killing, they are for self-defense. I always like to point out how astounding British homicide rate were before the advent of guns. I think that was so because before there were guns, there was brawn, and the brawnier guy would invariably win. Today, self-defense comes at the end of a barrel, and the guy (or gal) who practices a lot will probably win the encounter (or scare the bad guy enough to keep him away). Of course, where there are an insufficient number police, homicide rates can get astronomical when law-abiding citizens are disarmed (think Washington DC, where it is about 35 per 100,000) or concealed carry permits nearly impossible to get (think Baltimore, MD where the homicide is 41 per 100,000).

As for the article itself, even longitudinal studies can be misleading. It may be true that if A always precedes B, then we have reason to believe that A causes B. Sometimes, though, a third factor can cause A to occur which then causes B to occur, or the third factor may obscure the real relationship betwee A and B so that B to occurs in a way that is counter-intuitive. Here’s an example of that. Some years ago I looked at the relationship between gunownership homicide rates across states taking into demographics (white/black and income) of the various states. No matter how I expressed the relationship or the demographics, I found that gunownership always seemed to be associated with higher homicide rates. Then, by chance, I observed an association between gun ownership and age, and specifically, that ownership was positively associated with the percentage of the population in 15-25 range. I then found that when I accounted separately (in a simultaneous equation model) for the relationship between age and gun ownership that the expected relationship of a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates emerged. My conclusion was that the population of the 15-25 range was the third factor that was obscuring the relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership.

Another point to take away here is that care must be taken in tweaking out of social statistics the underlying relationship. Something so simplistic as the study in the article should be dismissed as being misleading.

There are also more white people at McDonalds, the mall, driving Fords on the freeway…
The question isn’t the number; the question is the proportion — the number relative to their occurrence in the general population. And in this case, Blacks and Hispanics are way overrepresented in the prison system at all levels because they commit felony offenses at comparatively greater rates.

biblio44 (28):
23. KB: “A co-worker once tried to imply, using a similar study, the my gun was more likely to harm a family member than an intruder. Maybe. Maybe not.”

Right. It’s certainly a risk worth taking. I mean, you can always have more kids or remarry.

Or you can simply take a gun-safety course from the NRA and learn how to safely store and handle firearms. I take it, biblio44, that you do not drive automobiles, handle sharp kitchen or yard utensils, or use power tools? These things have all been used to kill people, after all, and can be quite dangerous.

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is an extremely dangerous chemical found in all households. It should be banned from use immediately. “Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment”

For factual accounts of firearms used in self-defense, see the Armed Citizen column in the NRA “American Rifleman” magazine. Each year thousands of crimes are stopped because the intended victims are armed. The problem, of course, is that crimes that don’t happen don’t make the news.

A bat is designed for baseball. A kitchen knife is designed for cooking. A handgun is designed for killing people.

No, handguns are designed to fire bullets relatively accurately and reliably. Where the bullet goes is up to the person carrying it. Personally, I’ve only ever (so far) used firearms to make holes in paper targets.

Again, in the vast majority of the actual occasions where firearms are actually used they are never fired. A 1911 Automatic has a wonderful deterrent effect on a would-be criminal.

#54 Jack in Silver Spring, I would be interested in seeing your study, if at all possible.

#47 Jim Baker, I’m with you as well. The founders of this great country wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government when it got out of control, which is also why they were against standing armies. The idea was that since everyone was armed, everyone (aka “the militia”) would defend the country against invasion, and would be in a position to “throw the bums out” so to speak if the government stopped responding to the will of the people (kind of like now). Unfortunately, this information is not taught any more in the high schools, one must study for themselves to learn it.

Like many of the people writing here today, I own several firearms. I also happen to be employed by a company where I must carry a firearm for work. I most sincerely wish to never have to fire a weapon at anyone, for any reason.

I feel that it is the responsibility of each individual to provide for their own personal defense. Especially when it comes to females or smaller persons, their best (if not only) method of “evening the odds” against a larger attacker is a firearm. Even if they are proficient in martial arts, an attacker with a weapon still has the uppeer hand. If one chooses not to defend themselves, that is their choice; however, depending on the benificence of the attacker, or the police (who have no legal responsibility to defend anyone, by the way) is not advisable to anyone who wishes to stay alive.

When I read about studies that claim that people who own guns are more likely to be shot than those who don’t, I must think about a statistic I read some years ago.
It stated that about 1/3 of policemen shot in the line of duty were shot with their own weapons.
Now, if this is all true, then if we disarm people such as myself, who are armed to the teeth, and also disarm police officers, then those of us who keep arms to protect ourselves would be safer, and police homicides would be reduced by 33% or so. Certainly the statistics don’t lie, do they?
Well, like Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
I’ll keep my guns, thank you. They are maintained, loaded, and I am proficient in their use. Should you come to my house, knock first, you will be welcomed. Invade my house, somebody’s going to get hurt.

White Americans are the most fearful people in the world. Needing guns to protect themselves from Blacks and Hispanics while pretending that its all about their devotion to the Second Ammendment.

Lorenzo, your ignorance is astonishing. See the FBI’s 2008 Uniform Crime Reports, Table 3. More than half of all murders where the identity of the offender is known are black. If you look at Table 2, which shows murder victims, you will see that slightly less than half of all murder victims are black. Murder in the U.S. is overwhelmingly within race: whites murdering whites, black murdering blacks. The FBI no longer breaks down by Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic, but when they have done so for limited studies in the past, it has often been the case that non-Hispanic whites are 20% or so all U.S. murder victims and murderers.

I would prefer that killing people wasn’t necessary. But the alternatives are innocent people being raped, murdered, robbed, and tortured. I know way, way too many people from days living in California who weren’t armed–and needed to be.

Well of course. Blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population. Blacks commit at least half of all murders in the U.S. What’s somewhat surprising is what a small fraction of those on Death Row are black. This may be because most murder is within race, and much of it is gang-related–and those aren’t easy cases to solve.

They post this data every year on their website. Oddly none of the national media are capable of finding it, or perhaps are committed to not reporting it. What is particulary enlightening is the data that shows that if one is a 15-27 year old, male, minority, gangmember you are both the most likely victim of, as well as suspect in, a homicide. They are probably afraid of being called racist as the information does not fit with the approved agenda.

In multiple studies that I have read, black male youth commit murder at about ten times the rate of white male youth. There’s something terribly broken in many of America’s ghettos–and it’s easier to focus on guns (even though many of those ghettos have the most restrictive gun control laws) rather than focus on the cultural problems that have become more common over the last forty years.

23. KB: “A co-worker once tried to imply, using a similar study, the my gun was more likely to harm a family member than an intruder. Maybe. Maybe not.”

Right. It’s certainly a risk worth taking. I mean, you can always have more kids or remarry.

There are risk factors worth considering. If you or someone in your home has a violent temper, drinks to excess, or abuses mind-altering drugs, a gun is likely higher risk than the benefit it gives. If someone in your home is psychotic, the gun is probably too dangerous to keep. And if you have children in your home, you should have your guns locked up–because small children make mistakes, and some teenagers effectively go insane for several years, before growing out of it. But the studies claiming that a gun is more dangerous to you than an intruder have a number of serious problems. The most famous of these, done in King County, also found that owning a dog or renting was even more of a risk of being murdered than owning a gun! The survey population turned out to be poor and black–very atypical of America, and even of King County.

However, I also take the police side in the argument(s) that some guns and ammo do not belong on the streets (we all know what they look like) and that screening buyers on a national level needs to be strengthened.

The problem is that the guns and ammo you want to ban because of “what they look like” aren’t a significant crime problem. They never have been.

Guns are designed for killing people, and so are swords. Both should be handled with the respect that such dangerous things deserve, and both are properly used to defend people against hostile threats to life, limb, or liberty, be they man or beast.

It stated that about 1/3 of policemen shot in the line of duty were shot with their own weapons.

And for a very simple reason that doesn’t apply to civilians who are armed: police officers have to get close enough to a criminal to pat them down, and cuff them. An armed civilian has no similar need–and considerable good reason–to never allow a criminal to get that close.

And how many times have you pulled a gun in self defense?

On two occasions I have had my hand on a gun, trying to determine if the circumstances warranted drawing it. They were both tremendously troubling and difficult situations.

One involved a woman who was being dragged out of her apartment, kicking and screaming, by a violent drunk. I had called the police, but this being California, they took 45 minutes to show up. Fortunately, someone with a golf club intervened and I didn’t need to draw.

The other may have been a robbery attempt, or it may have been some drunken college kids pulling an incredibly stupid prank. I considered the latter possibility, and chose to not draw my weapon until I saw either a muzzle flash or heard a gunshot. My wife and I both flattened ourselves against the ground, at which point the BMW took off.

Both times were tremendously scary circumstances, one that I do not wish to repeat. But being unarmed in either circumstance would have been even more scary.

What always amazes me is the crowd that insists that guns are so dangerous that no one should have them–usually combines this with the argument that there’s so little crime that you don’t need a gun, anyway. Which is it? Is this is a place with a serious violent crime problem, or isn’t it? If it is, there’s an argument for good people to be armed. If it isn’t, what’s the problem?

The one fact that is overwhelmingly proven is that law-abiding adults seldom misuse guns. Those who criminally misuse guns are overwhelmingly convicted felons (typically 36-45% of those arrested for murder), minors (in some years, as much as 1/3 of those arrested), and psychotics who stopped taking their medications (about 5% in a 1991 study). There are people who previous histories of violence or mental illness who suddenly one day commit murder with a gun, but they are pretty atypical.

The leftists have also made sure that if you defend yourself then you’re going to jail for several years as punishment for “murdering” the group of thugs who kicked your door down in the middle of night.

I’m not sure where you live, but even in California, someone kicks in your door in the middle of the night, the D.A. isn’t going to prosecute. California adopted a “castle doctrine” law back about 1982 because of an incident where a woman killed a guy who had forced his way into her home in Los Angeles, and the D.A. decided to prosecute her. The California legislature overwhelmingly changed state law to specify that forced entry by someone not a resident of the dwelling creates a presumption that they intend you great bodily harm–thus authorizing deadly force. And we even managed to get Democrats to support it (with a couple of stupid exceptions, like my member of the state senate) without having to supply them with Qualuuded teenaged boys. (I was so surprised.)

56. Paul of Alexandria: “I take it, biblio44, that you do not drive automobiles, handle sharp kitchen or yard utensils, or use power tools? These things have all been used to kill people, after all, and can be quite dangerous.”

What an original argument! You convinced me, Pauli. Pass out the firearms. Background checks? Forget ‘em. If you can handle sharp kitchen utensils, you can handle a Glock.

70. Clayton E. Cramer: “If you or someone in your home has a violent temper, drinks to excess, or abuses mind-altering drugs, a gun is likely higher risk than the benefit it gives.”

I recall a study from a class I took in the philosophy of science. It showed that 80% of pedestrian/vehicle accidents took place at crosswalks. The newspaper science writer who wrote the article suggested that maybe we needed to do away with crosswalks.

Obviously, we find the same number of people crossing the street between crosswalks as in them. [/sarcasm]

@80. vivo: “If you see me carrying a gun, be sure that I will use it. This is 100% reliable data . . .”

For what?

Nice, well reasoned argument.

The truth is that you would have to get off your backside and get out of your mommy’s basement to get a job so you could afford a gun. Then, if you were carrying it, you would most likely hurt yourself with it. I carry all of the time, in 25 years as a police officer in Metro Detroit I have seen lots of people killed because they were unable to defend themselves, never seen one that was killed because they were able to defend themselves. That alone settles the argument for me.

Clayton, Thanks for so many great examples of the causality thing. But, although what you pointed out about the questions the survey did not answer, I don’t know if you did much damage to it. You’re saying that some of those surveyed were gang members and that would skew the stats. But, how much? Would the true figure be only 3 times higher or only 2 times?

You’re saying that some of those surveyed were gang members and that would skew the stats. But, how much? Would the true figure be only 3 times higher or only 2 times?

As the article points out, in Milwaukee, 75% of homicide victims had previous arrests. Now, not everyone who has been arrested is a gang member, or even a criminal–but then again, there are gang members who have not yet been arrested. If we assume as an oversimplification that these balance out, then it would suggest that 3/4 of those gun owners who were shot were criminals. Instead of 4.5x more likely, it’s 1.125x more likely–and as I pointed out, some of the perfectly decent people who were victims in Philly may have bought a gun because they perceived themselves at risk.

Professor Volokh has also pointed out that because the “non-gun owners” may not have been telling the truth to researchers, a relatively small percentage who lied would substantially change the results.

Paul of Alexandria: “I take it, biblio44, that you do not drive automobiles, handle sharp kitchen or yard utensils, or use power tools? These things have all been used to kill people, after all, and can be quite dangerous.”

What an original argument! You convinced me, Pauli. Pass out the firearms. Background checks? Forget ‘em. If you can handle sharp kitchen utensils, you can handle a Glock.

If the dangerousness of a tool is the basis for banning or closely regulating it, then there are plenty of other common tools that need equivalent rules. And yet, the gun control crowd ignores those other dangerous devices.

And in practice, people that misuse handguns also misuse knives. That’s why there were proposals a couple of years ago to ban butcher knives in Scotland, except for chefs and other professionals. Cincinnati some years back was discussing registering baseball bats, and making them illegal anywhere except at, to, or from a baseball diamond.

For those who asked – the study I did was informal, so there is no formal write-up. The informal study was based on the following two equations (and I will guide the readers through them, painful as that might be – please go to the end of the two equations for that guidance):

The first equation relates the homicide rate across states to three primary factors: fraction of the population of the state that is black, average income in the state, and the ownerhsip rate of the state. There is a fourth factor, which is everything else, and it is subsumed in an unvarying constant term. To know whether a relationship is statistically significant, we use the t-ratio. A t-ratio of greater than 2 usually signifies significance at 95% level (meaning 95% of the time that relationship will not be zero). In one case, though, I left in a t-ratio of about 1.65 which indicates significance at the 90% level. It is considered marginally significant. The reason for everything here being significant is that I eliminated the non-significant relationships.

The first equation says that state homicide rates are positively related to the fraction of the population that is black and negatively related to average income and, very importantly, negatively related to ownership rates. That is a major contradiction to the study cited.

The second equation relates ownership rates to four factors: the fraction of the population that is adolescent (15-25 range), the fraction of the population urbanized, average income and education. (Again, there are all the other factors which are subsumed in a constant term.) What the second equation indicates is that ownership rates are positively related to the fraction of the population that is adolescent, negatively related to urbanization, negatively related to income, and positively related to education.

The way to view these relationships is to think of them as holding all other things constant. So, in the first equation, homicide rates are negatively related to ownership rates if everything else in the equation is constant. In particular, if ownership rates go up by 10 percentage points (for example, from 40% to 50%) then homicide rates would fall by 0.5 homicides per hundred thousand.

What ties the equations together is that they were estimated jointly through a full-information maximumu likelihood method. (Note: percent of variance explained is the R-square.)

Do you really think that they would any less traumatized if daddy had beat mommy to death with a bat?

I’m reminded of a secretary that I used to work with, many years ago. She explained that the reason that her husband and her had moved out of San Francisco is that they no longer felt safe there. She had been on a jury that had convicted a guy of manslaughter for beating his wife to death in front of their three kids. And then the judge gave this guy probation, because the judge was afraid that the kids would end up in foster care, instead of having a positive male role model.

San Francisco is something of the liberal’s Eden–where no serious violent crime ever gets much punishment. There was a young man from the Central Valley who had gone to a night baseball game at Candlestick. He never got home. It turned out that the young man had car trouble, and pulled into a gas station that was closed for the night. He went to a phone booth nearby, and was getting ready to call AAA when he saw two hoodlums (not black, for you liberals planning to call me a racist) breaking into his car. The young man called 911–and while on the phone, told the 911 operator that they were now running towards the phone booth! So this was a low priority emergency call, and when the police showed up an hour later–no sign of a crime! No one there!

His father reported him missing–and finally found his son’s body a few days later, near Candlestick. The police, of course, didn’t consider this set of circumstances terribly worrisome, until the father found the body. The two guys who kicked the son to death (proven by the shoeprints on the body matching their shoes) were given 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 years sentences–and they didn’t serve the full amount of either. I mean, they just kicked someone to death for calling 911.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the death of a 14 year old, shot to death while he attempted to drown a woman in a bathtub, in a crack house. The 14 year old already had a LENGTHY criminal history. And two shiny new German luxury cars from his work as a drug dealer. (But no driver’s license.) At age 11, this kid was arrested for carrying a sawed-off shotgun (a felony under state and federal law). So he was sent home to his mother.

Liberals like gun control because the alternative is to punish those commit serious crimes against others–and liberals could never countenance THAT.

Liberals are the most fearful people in the world. Needing gun control to protect themselves from Blacks and Hispanics.

Indeed, this is the reason that gun control–which used to be more of a conservative cause than a liberal one in the 19th and early 20th centuries–has become identified so strongly with liberalism. People that live in big cities have several choices when confronting that the vast majority of violent crime in their areas is committed by blacks and Hispanics can do one of the following:

1. Admit that the cause of this violence are are severe cultural problems that became worse as the Great Society grew, and need fixing;

2. Become racists, and blame an entire race or ethnic group for criminals who are, at most, 2-3% of that population (and who most inflict suffering on their own group);

3. Blame inanimate objects rather than the criminals who misuse those objects.

I desperately hope that it doesn’t get to that point. The history of armed revolutions is really ugly. The American Revolution is one of the few successes. I worry that if push comes to shove, the sort that will be left standing when the bloodshed stops will be the most ruthless and savage. Nations in internal revolt are often unable to defend their interests abroad.

“@80. vivo: “If you see me carrying a gun, be sure that I will use it. This is 100% reliable data . . .”

. . . I carry all of the time, in 25 years as a police officer in Metro Detroit I have seen lots of people killed because they were unable to defend themselves,”

A cop! That explains a lot. You are right that if one is not trained, the gun is useless.

The point I’m making is that if I carry a gun is because I’m going to use it. I wouldn’t carry a gun for ‘just in case’ situations. Maybe I’m not explaining this scenario well. I will use a gun against an identified aggressor. But this hopefully will never happen because I would avoid or defuse dangerous situations.

Here’s is my OK CORRAL study that supports the good work of Penn State Med (I sent the USG a invoice for $100M and sent an entry to Stockholm for the 2010 Nobel Prize Contest.)

OK Corral A) 10 Earps arrive unarmed. 100 armed Clantons shoot one Earp 600 times, then beat 8 of them to death with a bungstarter, and finally tar & feather the last one at the family picnic. RESULT: 90% fatalities/10% 3rd degree burns (one died gunshot)